Cannon v. Clarendon Hardware Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Cannon v. Clarendon Hardware Co.

88 S.E. 284, 103 S.C. 538, 1916 S.C. LEXIS 59

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedMarch 13, 1916

Docket9328

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 88 S.E. 284 (Cannon v. Clarendon Hardware Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cannon v. Clarendon Hardware Co., 88 S.E. 284, 103 S.C. 538, 1916 S.C. LEXIS 59 (S.C. 1916).

Pincite

Opinions

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Fraser.

This was a suit on two notes executed by the appellant to the Brenard Manufacturing Company. On the back of the notes there was an assignment written to the plaintiff, *539 purporting to be signed by' Breñard Manufacturing Company. The defendant admitted the execution of the notes, but denied that the plaintiff was an innocent purchaser for value, without notice before maturity, and alleged that the notes were executed as a part of a contract of sale of a piano.

1 The contract provided for a piano, worth $300, but the piano delivered was not worth more than $90. A mere estimate by witnesses that a chattel is not worth the agreed price is not evidence, standing alone, of fraud. One man thinks that a piano is excellent and no other make is to be considered. Another man may not think that piano at all desirable. The difference between the qualities of goods contracted for and the goods delivered may be evidence of fraud. The notes came from the possession of the plaintiff. Their execution and nonpayment were not denied. There was no notice to plaintiff proven.

A verdict for the plaintiff was directed by Judge Bowman. Under the case of Bank v. Stackhouse, 91 S. C. 459, 74 S. E. 977, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 454, he could have done nothing else. It is said, “The possession of such paper carries the title with it to the holder.”

The judgment should be affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Hydrick, Watts, and Gage concur in the opinion of the Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Fraser.

This was a suit on two notes executed by the appellant to the Brenard Manufacturing Company. On the back of the notes there was an assignment written to the plaintiff, *539 purporting to be signed by' Breñard Manufacturing Company. The defendant admitted the execution of the notes, but denied that the plaintiff was an innocent purchaser for value, without notice before maturity, and alleged that the notes were executed as a part of a contract of sale of a piano.

1 The contract provided for a piano, worth $300, but the piano delivered was not worth more than $90. A mere estimate by witnesses that a chattel is not worth the agreed price is not evidence, standing alone, of fraud. One man thinks that a piano is excellent and no other make is to be considered. Another man may not think that piano at all desirable. The difference between the qualities of goods contracted for and the goods delivered may be evidence of fraud. The notes came from the possession of the plaintiff. Their execution and nonpayment were not denied. There was no notice to plaintiff proven.

A verdict for the plaintiff was directed by Judge Bowman. Under the case of Bank v. Stackhouse, 91 S. C. 459, 74 S. E. 977, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 454, he could have done nothing else. It is said, “The possession of such paper carries the title with it to the holder.”

The judgment should be affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Hydrick, Watts, and Gage concur in the opinion of the Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 S.E. 284, 103 S.C. 538, 1916 S.C. LEXIS 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cannon-v-clarendon-hardware-co-sc-1916.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack